What can be done about mega-corporations that are too big to fail?

[Draco-Onis]

I'd agree with this, except I would extend it further to google, apple, etc.

If you don't like the way a company is run, then don't be a customer period. There are plenty of alternatives. I do not agree that suddenly these business's that have become successful should be regulated OUTSIDE of being made to pay their fair share in taxes which i way way way too low.

These companies have gotten this way because the government has become nothing more than a rubber stamper when it comes to mergers. In a lot of industries there are no alternatives, have we learned nothing from COVID? most of these "alternatives" is just the same company under a different name most industries in the US you are down to 2-3 choices sometimes none.

[Radeghost]

Should be split like they did with Rockefeller's Standard Oil Co.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Like I implied earlier, the issue with capitalism isn't markets, it's capitalists. Capitalism is not market economics, fundamentally, and is in fact heavily antagonistic to free market action, inherently, because capitalists are the ones with economic power and competition works against their interests. Whenever people talk about the benefits of capitalism, it's always about the free markets and the power of competition and how supply and demand work and so on, and none of that is unique to or derivative from capitalist theory. Literally not one bit of it. You can get all of that in a liberal market socialist economy. The only significant change is that you no longer have capitalists engaging in class economic warfare against the workers and consumers both, you have workers and consumers with shared-but-competing interests, which actually creates a lot of the promises capitalist theory absolutely fails to produce, like competitive markets, free labor markets, mutually-supportive growth for all parties, and so on.

Another issue is a connected world. When conservatives attack "globalism" this is what they're talking about, an interconnected world. But an interconnected world is not something they can stop. So while conservatives are seeking to stop globalism is the most futile campaign ever, everyone else is looking for how to adapt our economic systems to a globalized world.

Capitalism worked well as the world was transitioning from bartering to global interconnection. It doesn't work so well in the latter specifically because of massive wealth accumulation.

Back when there was no or limited communication (Think telegraph and phones) small communities always relied upon their own to live. There were small town doctors, general stores, tack and leather stores, etc. If there was a "hole" in the local economy, anyone could easily fill that hole and make a decent living.

Now, all of humanity's basics are handle by massive, faceless corporations. The money flows towards the one that is deemed the "best" and all others are drowned out or bought out. There is no stopping globalization, only adapting, and conservatives are refusing to adapt. Thus why minimum and living wages/UBI have become such a hot button issue. They're measures that should have been implemented 2 or 3 decades ago, not in 10 years or whenever the fuck we get around to it.

[Endus]

Another issue is a connected world. When conservatives attack "globalism" this is what they're talking about, an interconnected world. But an interconnected world is not something they can stop. So while conservatives are seeking to stop globalism is the most futile campaign ever, everyone else is looking for how to adapt our economic systems to a globalized world.

Capitalism worked well as the world was transitioning from bartering to global interconnection. It doesn't work so well in the latter specifically because of massive wealth accumulation.

For the most part, this can be mitigated by at least the big economic players. Markets the size of the USA, the EU, and, yes, China can just make sweeping decisions and force companies to abide by them, because pulling out of the market represents an even greater loss; getting your profits taxed at 90%, say, is still way more profit than no profit from that market at all.
They just have to have the guts to realize they hold the power.

Now, all of humanity's basics are handle by massive, faceless corporations. The money flows towards the one that is deemed the "best" and all others are drowned out or bought out. There is no stopping globalization, only adapting, and conservatives are refusing to adapt. Thus why minimum and living wages/UBI have become such a hot button issue. They're measures that should have been implemented 2 or 3 decades ago, not in 10 years or whenever the fuck we get around to it.

It's all really complex. Big companies become distributors for smaller companies because the big guys already have the delivery systems in place and it's just way cheaper for those smaller companies to give the big guys a cut than to build their own delivery network. This isn't inherently "bad", but it needs to have regulation to protect people.

[Doctor Amadeus]

These companies have gotten this way because the government has become nothing more than a rubber stamper when it comes to mergers. In a lot of industries there are no alternatives, have we learned nothing from COVID? most of these "alternatives" is just the same company under a different name most industries in the US you are down to 2-3 choices sometimes none.

But there is choice not just the big 3 or 4 also local and independent. As for what the government allows it should really stay out. The government shouldn't be in the business of business at all.

As long as they follow the rules and regulations of what people set up (Tax paying citizens) that is it.

I also don't support unionizing private company's in general either, a bunch of opinionated assholes who come late shouldn't suddenly get to decide how Amazon's business model works or doesn't. I am all for paying them a livable wage, but that's it, as long as they are safe and being paid the cost of living everything else they can either work or decide to walk.

That ALSO doesn't mean I support unethical or even immoral behavior of some of these company's. But outside of the regulations I said and paying their fair share, I am not for coddling a bunch of morons and people too fucking lazy to do a job.

I say that because I use fast food workers for an example, people too stupid reach the company's standards much less customers shouldn't be rewarded with mob like abilities. Company's shouldn't be allowed that and neither should general labor.

[Biglog]

Too big to fail and breaking up large corporations are 2 quite different things. For example, the government has argued before that certain auto companies and some investment companies were too big to fail, but not that they should be broken up.

So the argument needs to be made that big companies should be broken up. Maybe Amazon will reach that point someday. But all of the others in the list, and Amazon now, can argue pretty easily that there is still competition. Yes you can get anything at Amazon, but there's nothing at Amazon that you can't buy elsewhere online or at a brick & mortar store. There are other search engines than Google. Google, Microsoft, and Amazon all compete with each other in just about every range of IT services, along with others like IBM and Oracle. And at the end of the day big successful corporations like Amazon, Google, GM, Ford, Chase, etc. in a capitalist system like ours is kind of working as-designed. So that's why bills to break them up (often simply for political reasons) don't get very far.

[Draco-Onis]

As for what the government allows it should really stay out. The government shouldn't be in the business of business at all.

Ah so you look back on the time where government stayed out of business fondly when they would put illegal drugs, dirt and other poisons in your food in the pursuit of profit.

[Shadowferal]

But there is choice not just the big 3 or 4 also local and independent. As for what the government allows it should really stay out. The government shouldn't be in the business of business at all.

As long as they follow the rules and regulations of what people set up (Tax paying citizens) that is it.

And how do regulations originate?

[Endus]

As for what the government allows it should really stay out. The government shouldn't be in the business of business at all.

That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. It's like saying government shouldn't be in the business of justice, and should leave that to private mercenaries. Literally the same absolutely crazy argument.

[Forogil]

Shifting to a worker-based ownership system makes it nearly impossible for workers to end up being exploited, since it's the workers themselves making those decisions. It also means the massive amount of profits these megacorporations make is going largely to their massive employee base, boosting all their incomes rather than letting one tick of a human being at the very top bleed off the vast majority of that profit all to themselves.

You are applying 19th century thinking in the 21st century.

Many of the other "large" companies don't have a massive employee base, and the problem with their size is the impact on consumers - not employees. For the companies that in some sense use lots of workers the world has changed the last couple of hundred years, and speaking of "employees" misses the change from the proletariat to the precariat (and earlier outsourcing etc).

Amazon has more than a million employees, but let's look at the other "large" companies: Blackrock has about 20k employees with an average salary of above $100k.

Disney has about 200k and different reports state that the average salary is somewhere between $36k or $90k; the range is ludicrous and indicate that "average employee" isn't as straightforward as one would think (theme-parks are likely low-pay, but could be made franchises instead). Apple has about 130k employees with an average salary above $100k; Google about 160k and average salary $130k.

In many of those cases the employees working on the currently most visible and revenue-generating part of the company is substantially smaller. And these employees are not the ones peeing in bottles, but the impact on consumers can still be an issue.

And as soon as possible Amazon will likely replace their trusted fulfilment center employees with additional automated system.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Ah so you look back on the time where government stayed out of business fondly when they would put illegal drugs, dirt and other poisons in your food in the pursuit of profit.

Valid point but this is the wrong argument. Also the government never told anybody they had to do those drugs either. The point here is that taxes and regulation are good, however punishing business by getting into business when their is nothing anti trust about intellectual properties online or anyone's access to them NO!

The government should not be in place to decide who winners and losers are based on the whims of randoms. Also people too lazy or stupid to work correctly should not come along and suddenly become voters in how a private business is run. If you don't like a job QUIT everyone else has done it. Not every job is for everyone

- - - Updated - - -

And how do regulations originate?

Well regulations originate from standpoint of harm reduction. Social rules absolutely should and do apply when it comes to safety or local or even global impacts on the environment as it relates to the first lines it has absolutely nothing to do with business and company's that already comply with those standards being targeted because people FEEL they know what's goings on there and feel entitled to have a say. That is absolutely not how that was ever intended to work.

[Draco-Onis]

Valid point but this is the wrong argument. Also the government never told anybody they had to do those drugs either. The point here is that taxes and regulation are good, however punishing business by getting into business when their is nothing anti trust about intellectual properties online or anyone's access to them NO!

The government should not be in place to decide who winners and losers are based on the whims of randoms. Also people too lazy or stupid to work correctly should not come along and suddenly become voters in how a private business is run. If you don't like a job QUIT everyone else has done it. Not every job is for everyone

Companies put addictive drugs in some of their products in the past because it was good for business without their customers knowing. For example some health supplements used to put steroids in their pill because it was cheap and customers would buy more because they saw results. Another reason was that the illegal drugs were cheap fillers which lead to greater profit.

The government does get to decide winners and losers it's their job and it's not random they are supposed to do it to protect regular people because businesses only goal is to make money. They have demonstrated they don't care about human lives, you are contradicting yourself here. You can't be pro government regulation and them not deciding winners and losers, being able to put those poisons can mean more profit you know.

[Poopymonster]

Ah so you look back on the time where government stayed out of business fondly when they would put illegal drugs, dirt and other poisons in your food in the pursuit of profit.

But don't you see? Then another company is formed to clean up/detox the problem created by the previous business.
That's job creation!
Then another company is there to try to unfuck the pooch from the previous company...
Make Lead Great Again!

[Doctor Amadeus]

That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. It's like saying government shouldn't be in the business of justice, and should leave that to private mercenaries. Literally the same absolutely crazy argument.

No, you're conflating one thing for another, and private mercenaries are already a thing, Wagner , Academy (Blackwater), Aegis Defense Services, Canopy, DynCorp, G4S Security. Just to name of few. They are already regulated for what they can and can't do outside of their business. However inside of those groups and how those business's they aren't.

You don't get a say in who they hire, or how much they charge or even if they are competitive. You do get a say in if they are the only game in town and that is actually hurting private citizens. they aren't.

Neither is Amazon or Apple

[minteK917]

I think the focus on size misses the real issue; that being the existence of oligarchs exploiting these massive companies for personal political gain.

A lot of these companies, like Youtube, are massive because of individual choice; the size of their audience and content creation is the draw, and if you tried to split it up into Atube and Btube, everyone would end up picking one of the two and re-inflating it, unless you put in hard regional separators which is challenging in a digital world. As long as the company isn't engaging in market manipulations that limit competition directly, I don't have a problem with them outcompeting by virtue of their size alone, when that size is the appeal.

Most of the rest, where they do get abusive, is cases like Amazon's harsh employee requirements, the whole "peeing in bottles" and "burnout" stuff we've been hearing about. That's due to the decision-makers, the oligarchs, not respecting the staff and extracting profit from them the same way an oil company does an oil deposit.

Shifting to a worker-based ownership system makes it nearly impossible for workers to end up being exploited, since it's the workers themselves making those decisions. It also means the massive amount of profits these megacorporations make is going largely to their massive employee base, boosting all their incomes rather than letting one tick of a human being at the very top bleed off the vast majority of that profit all to themselves.

The problem with Amazon is not Amazon. The problem is Jeff Bezos.

Sadly people care more about the big part, which as you said is stupid as hell. The big part is actually why these things are successful and good. This goes for most industries, people like small stuff, until they get hit by the inconvenience. People also have the same problem with for example industrial farming. Hate to break it to people, mom and pops farm wouldnt be able to let you consume what you do right now. If they could, it would be so spread it would be less effective and more pollution then industrial farming in total.

Breaking entertainment industry makes more sense, because its not as vital. But again the size is not the problem anyway.

And to be honest the breaking them up is actually still buying into the fake idea that the free market will fix everything. Because you assume that if the actors are smaller, THEN the invisible hand of the market fixes everything. The invisible hand just doesent work when actors are too big.

As for the too big to fail, its not because Jeff Bezos is a billionaire. Its because in the USA alone amazon has over 1 million employees. If you run a country you dont want a company with literal % of your work force to fail? That doesent sound like a good time.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Companies put addictive drugs in some of their products in the past because it was good for business without their customers knowing. For example some health supplements used to put steroids in their pill because it was cheap and customers would buy more because they saw results. Another reason was that the illegal drugs were cheap fillers which lead to greater profit.

The government does get to decide winners and losers it's their job and it's not random they are supposed to do it to protect regular people because businesses only goal is to make money. They have demonstrated they don't care about human lives, you are contradicting yourself here. You can't be pro government regulation and them not deciding winners and losers, being able to put those poisons can mean more profit you know.

True all true and we should nail these motherfuckers to the wall and put the owners in prison. I am with you brother!


But no the government doesn't get to pick winners and losers, and that isn't socialism or capitalisms that is communism. And that is a bridge to far for me.

When it comes to unsustainable sourcing or unsafe and unhealthy work environments we should and do have agency for that, hell I am also fine with taxing the ever loving fuck out of these business's too.

Elon Musk is an asshole probably a racist POS too. However that doesn't mean I get to tell him how to run his company outside the parameters of what I said. Amazon has competition Walmart, Sears, Etsy, Ebay, Overstock local establishments. If as a consumer you disagree with what they do, shop somewhere else.

[Shadowferal]

Breaking up big companies like Google and Amazon has wide support across the spectrum...it's inevitable.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Breaking up big companies like Google and Amazon has wide support across the spectrum...it's inevitable.

You would think so. But anyone that gets elected to vote on those changes will be bought and sold by big money donations that don't want that to be.

If you look at a large chunk of major issues you see a pretty wide spread support base on both sides for it to get changed. But it never does.

Those companies are the government now. Or at least sway enough power over the government that they will never face major political pressure from it.

[Endus]

You are applying 19th century thinking in the 21st century.

Many of the other "large" companies don't have a massive employee base, and the problem with their size is the impact on consumers - not employees. For the companies that in some sense use lots of workers the world has changed the last couple of hundred years, and speaking of "employees" misses the change from the proletariat to the precariat (and earlier outsourcing etc).

Amazon has more than a million employees, but let's look at the other "large" companies: Blackrock has about 20k employees with an average salary of above $100k.

Disney has about 200k and different reports state that the average salary is somewhere between $36k or $90k; the range is ludicrous and indicate that "average employee" isn't as straightforward as one would think (theme-parks are likely low-pay, but could be made franchises instead). Apple has about 130k employees with an average salary above $100k; Google about 160k and average salary $130k.

In many of those cases the employees working on the currently most visible and revenue-generating part of the company is substantially smaller. And these employees are not the ones peeing in bottles, but the impact on consumers can still be an issue.

And as soon as possible Amazon will likely replace their trusted fulfilment center employees with additional automated system.

You're just not extrapolating forward the systemic changes that a lack of capitalist profit motive would propagate through a company's decision-making. The capitalist profit motive is not the same as a worker-driven profit motive, because the individual benefits are much-reduced; unethical choices made don't lead to the same scale of windfall when it's split 20,000+ ways, and no one's getting a lion's share. Without that personal gain, it becomes a lot harder to self-justify unethical acts; a decision made to earn an additional $20m, split 20,000 ways, only works out to about $1000 each; that's like "normal Christmas bonus" territory for a lot of professional firms; I just saw a sign two days ago where a hair stylist was offering a $1500 signing bonus for new stylists.

Also, if you think this is the only change I'd propose, you haven't paid much attention. This is just a critically necessary first step. Companies like Blackrock are causing problems due to how they use their wealth; splitting them up into three companies that act the same way wouldn't help anything.

[Draco-Onis]

True all true and we should nail these motherfuckers to the wall and put the owners in prison. I am with you brother!


But no the government doesn't get to pick winners and losers, and that isn't socialism or capitalisms that is communism. And that is a bridge to far for me.

When it comes to unsustainable sourcing or unsafe and unhealthy work environments we should and do have agency for that, hell I am also fine with taxing the ever loving fuck out of these business's too.

Elon Musk is an asshole probably a racist POS too. However that doesn't mean I get to tell him how to run his company outside the parameters of what I said. Amazon has competition Walmart, Sears, Etsy, Ebay, Overstock local establishments. If as a consumer you disagree with what they do, shop somewhere else.

I don't think you understand the concept of too big to fail, when companies get this big it means we as a society have to bail them out so that they don't fail (see 2008 financial crisis). You don't consider that "communism"?